From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 9 08:57:11 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6233110656AB for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 08:57:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erikt@midgard.homeip.net) Received: from ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net (ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net [80.76.149.213]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4BEB8FC12 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 08:57:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from c83-255-61-120.bredband.comhem.se ([83.255.61.120]:38850 helo=falcon.midgard.homeip.net) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1OtcwH-0000vb-7a for stable@freebsd.org; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:57:03 +0200 Received: (qmail 12853 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2010 10:56:58 +0200 Received: from owl.midgard.homeip.net (10.1.5.7) by falcon.midgard.homeip.net with ESMTP; 9 Sep 2010 10:56:58 +0200 Received: (qmail 15558 invoked by uid 1001); 9 Sep 2010 10:56:58 +0200 Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 10:56:58 +0200 From: Erik Trulsson To: perryh@pluto.rain.com Message-ID: <20100909085658.GA15504@owl.midgard.homeip.net> References: <201009011653.o81Grkm4056064@fire.js.berklix.net> <201009080842.28495.jhb@freebsd.org> <201009081021.48077.jhb@freebsd.org> <4c88993e.MgMUYIGSfJIxECy9%perryh@pluto.rain.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4c88993e.MgMUYIGSfJIxECy9%perryh@pluto.rain.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Originating-IP: 83.255.61.120 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1OtcwH-0000vb-7a. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1OtcwH-0000vb-7a 3007927eb55882bf69c4d05b6dfd1222 Cc: vadim_nuclight@mail.ru, stable@freebsd.org, jhb@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Policy for removing working code X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:57:11 -0000 On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 01:22:22AM -0700, perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > > > We can't e-mail announce@ every time something is going to > > be removed. That would be way too much spam for that list. > > That may depend on how often something substantial is removed :) If mails to announce@ were only sent at the point significant stuff actually is removed it might not be all that much traffic, but at that point it seems a bit late for people to protest against the removal since it has already happened. OTOH, if mails were sent to announce@ everytime something was proposed to be removed then there would probably be far too much traffic for that list. (Most discussions regarding removing stuff tend to end up with status quo being maintained.) > > > I do think stable@ is a good place to e-mail ... > > Good, perhaps even "necessary", but is it "sufficient"? Those > following a -STABLE branch are expected to read stable@, but > what about those who are following a security branch? That depends on what they want to know. If they are concerned about things affecting the branch they are following, then announce@ is probably sufficient since all security advisories are sent there and there are essentially no other changes made to a security branch. If, on the other hand, they are interested in what will be included/not included in future major releases, then current@ is pretty much a must-read. -- Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se